We Finally Talk About Canada w/ Dimes: Ep. 478

don't think anyone hairs to look anymore. They just accepted that's in the background of the Internet. And I think if it disappeared nothing, it wouldn't matter. If Wikipedia was gone, no one would give a shit. But I don't know. I just they kind of like they like it being there. You need to give something for these You know, I don't want to use any bad words in your show. I don't want to get you in trouble. Let's say gender confused people. You got to get them something to

do all day. But that puts all the autists set of work. So I don't know, there's no easy answer.

at the arts irrelevant? I want kind of like ballroom trivia and crazy.

that they're in imagining such a thing. But also uh no, thank you, I know that's okay. You know, I'm that man is too old to eat solid food.

this performative horniness isn't going anywhere. It's just performative horniness for horniness' sake.

it with Reddit and whatnot. But you know, seeing a hot woman, what am I saying? A hot woman? Fuck me right? But you know they're like, oh, she's hot. I wanted to crush my head in her thighs. So getting violent. The only way you're allowed to approach horniness is if you're being dominated, and not just dominated but dominated violently, and that that's I don't remember that when I was younger. That's relatively new. I'm like that, that's

not even sexy. You're just kind of you're doing this sort of ghost dance, just screaming to the world I'm a sexual being. Look at look at this twisted stuff I think of. But you know, as someone who has had sex, I'm like, I smell of void inside of you.

performative online thing. And there's this term I can't remember I stole it from, but safe horning, right, which is like you're allowed to You're allowed to talk about that all you want. You know, you're to kind of, you know, throw out all of the kind of like body memes. But if you're otherwise attracted to conventionally attractive, particularly white women, like that's just a moral issue with you. You're probably like a pedophile if you've noticed the one that they like to throw out a lot.

can kick the shit out of you. And that's where we're at.

on Canada. It's you know, within the Canadian context, but I think it's applicable to American audiences and also European audiences. But I have so many American friends. It's such a strong American Network, and I think the things that we discuss in it are they'll find it very interesting. So

it's titled how to make a Canadian People. I've had to summarize it very very succinctly, and we can talk about some of the themes we discussed in it, but it's about how to trigger an ethnogenesis in the twenty first century, and that alone would require some unpacking, I'm sure, but just to start. Released a couple of weeks ago, and a lot of people worked on it, and the same crew as the first one, and I'm very, very

proud of it. I'd say the first one. The first one set the stage by discussing the history of mass migration in Canada and getting into the history of what led us to that, and specifically looking at public opinion polls from the nineteen forties up through the twinth century, showing, you know, census data and public opinion polls about what people actually thought about immigration contrary to what you're told.

And I feel as if you're told this in America as well, that well, we voted for it, your ancestors or family voted for this life that you have right now, and you realize that If you take a historical view, and many of your audience likely have done this, you understand that they were very vocal that they were not promegration, but it happened anyway. There was a bureaucratic subversion that occurred.

And because it's Canada and there just fewer people here, I found that the conspiracy was in sharper relief because we can trace this to a few specific prime ministers, and you know, it's across decades. It's a bipart it's an issue. You can't really blame it on the liberals or the conservatives. Those would be the Democrats or Republicans in America. It cuts across all the politics. The what led us to hear what led us to really opening the doors to you know, it didn't it's as bad

now as it's ever been. But it really started around the same time as it started in the US in the nineteen sixties. That was a big pivot point where you started seeing these laws being passed, in fact against the proclamations of the prime minister. The entire time, you had these political leaders saying we're not going to do this.

Mass migration sounds stupid. Why would we want to do that and then behind closed doors they're doing it anyway, And we don't need to discuss that entire documentary, but that set the stage for this one because we wanted to ask the question, you know, what is a Canadian? You know, in America you have a different self awareness, a different way, different sort of history, and a different self conceptualization. And you know, Canada and America are actually

quite similar. They're at odds now in a lot of ways. But I mean, it's it's not like Canada versus fucking China. It's not Canada versus Nigeria, you know what I mean. That's like some people act like we're separate continents and I don't really have much patience for that. There are differences, Okay, fine.

And I'm also stricken struck, I cannot speak. Tonight dives deeply.

about this on our show. We've covered a great many Canadian books recently, and I wrote this Vanguardist Journal article my substack about the history of anti Americanism in Canada because a great many Canadians view themselves as apart from America and as more enlightened, you know. And this is when I was growing up. This was the sentiment up here that Canada was more you know, they'll say liberal.

But here's a thing. There's been a good amount of work put in by other content creators in our space right now, like my friend FORDA. Sachs. The Black Horse is another one. I think Ferryman's Toll would have probably spoken on this as well. You know, there's a historical argument you made that Canada is less liberal than America and depends how how you define liberalism. But it has

always been less about individual liberty. It's been about personal freedom, and that's worked against US and forests in some regards. But they would look upon Canada and say, look, they are the actualizations of American values, and I think if you get down to the root of it, I don't think so they would just look at Canada and say, oh, look how clean and nice they are. But Canadians are also very passive, aggressive and British about it too. But

again it's not so different than in America. They're not comparing different races of people here, frankly, but Canada, since I was, always had to define itself against America in terms of its tone and tenor and character. And we're just smarter than those boorish Americans, which I never agreed

to with because you'll say that one time. But everyone's got like twenty thousand Americans that they like, yeah, Americans are stupid, except Steve Jobs, like shut the fuck up, you know, like, and I was saying that when I was younger, and like, this is this is a dumb thing that we're doing but it's something that people cl to, and so there's a there's a historical argument for that

as well. With American interventionalism. There's actually quite a bit of military history between America and Canada or British North America, you know, between American and Britain at the time as well. There's I won't get into the nuts and bolts of that, but so the next one from that was we're talking about the political class. How much our politicians take their

cues from American politicians. I would say very heavily. One of the issues is that American Canadian media is dominated by American media, just due to the in the sense that the whole world is because American media is so dominant. We live right next door, so obviously we're gonna get so much media from America. Despite that, Canada actually has a surprisingly active music and movie and television scene given

its population size. But put that to the side, I'd say that most Canadian politicians would be take would be living within the American context or under the American shadow, having to respond to arguments made by America. You saw this with Donald Trump talking about annexation. That's one extreme example, but you know, even during Trump's first term, if you were to walk to a newsstand anywhere in Canada, every

major newspaper was talking about Donald Trump. And it was kind of a joke that during his first election it coincided with one of our elections, and every Canadian was watching Trump versus Hillary. No one was watching our election, and so it's just one of those uncomfortable things that people, you know, they complained about it, but the revealed preference shows something else. Canadian politics isn't as interesting. And by what do I mean by interest? Because I don't think

you're going to see someone like Trump emerge. The conservatives are a lot more restrained and muted, and they don't really know what they're advocating for. The liberals, you know, I would say that Canada overall is more progressive, especially by American standards. Here's a funny thing. So one of the reasons I never took the annexation talk from Donald Trump seriously is because I don't think Donald Trump's an idiot.

I'm not a fan of Donald Trump for various reasons, but on this one issue, I tend to think that he's at least thought it all the way through, and I think he understands that Canada's population over forty millions something like that. It's this population of Canada is comparable to that of California, and if America were too annex or absorb Canada, it would be like getting a second California. What do you think that does to American politics? Do

you think that fucks the Republicans forever? Right? Do you think that that changes the state of play significantly? So it's like he wouldn't it wouldn't be in his interest or the Republicans' interests to even do that. So I didn't think they were going to do it. But that's something to keep in mind that if you want to be of our political persuasion. You know, I'm not making any assumptions about your specific policies, but you know, for people like us, I find there's fewer of us in Canada.

The terrain is more hostile towards us. That's changing, I think, But I mean there's a lot of shit libs up here. Remember that Justin Trudeau was voted in pretty unanimously a couple of times after after people saw how stupid and inept he was. You see what I'm saying, Like, there's like Mark Karney wanted a fucking landslide right now. And Mark Karney is not your friend. But anyway, we don't need to get too much in that. But I'm saying is that there's not a sort of conservative base comparable

to America. So you're dealing with a lot. By American definitions, you would say that Canada is overall more progressive, I think, But there's a lot of rednecks, there's a lot of guns, there's all that stuff. But I don't think you're ever going to see a prime minister, at least in my lifetime, really take a crack at universal healthcare or any any of the fundamental issues. Do that answer any of your questions at all?

I'm just gonna a strange call there. Yeah, so where the civilizational power blocks are in Canada and then we build upon that, and so this is all relevant as long as we're talking about Canada. But as I'm discussing this, it's not so different than America, and it's really not so different from Europe because a lot of these we're dealing with a lot of the same phenomena. We're dealing with a lot of the same you know. The one thing about what led Canada down this path a mass migration.

And I'm not trying to get too much in that sort of clouse Schwab Agenda twenty thirty stuff, but even going back to the sixties, there was this idea that, you know, globalism is happening, globalism is the future. Who is jumping on that trade and Canada jumped on very enthusiastically.

That's one of the reasons that they're pursuing mass migration, just because they thought this, if we want to be on the side of international trade, if we want to be on the side of this new paradigm, this is what we need to do and not only should we go along with this, We should be the vanguards of it.

We should be front and center. In Canada, for so long has taken at least his political class taking great pride and being very involved in you know, un strategies, un groups topping the list of the most progressive, the most multicultural, the most open. That something is pride itself on. But that's because it feels it needs to, because that's the status quo. And they're not necessarily wrong. You're seeing the same thing in Australia, You're seeing the same thing

in fucking New Zealand. All across the Anglo sphere it's the same story. And I bet you if you're to look into it, you know, elite groups would be different, different sizes. And you know, America is almost an edge case because its internal politics are so dynamic and its influence is so wide reaching. It has, you know, so many different contained political battles going on right now. But I would say for everyone else, all across Europe, it's

the same story, more or less and very similar. I would hate to call it populist, but nationalist pushback in various forms, and that's kind of what we were taking here. Look, take if we're taking a nationalist approach, but what is Canadian nationalism? It's different than American in national nationalism, New Zealand nationalism. Like if you look at the red ensign flag, which was the original flag of Canada before the maple leaf flag everyone's familiar with, there's a little shield on there,

and that shield contains the founding ethnicities of Canada. You got the French, got the English, you got the Irish, and you know there's like four main ones. So from the beginning there's this idea and when people think of Canada and thing French and English, there's a demarcation there and you can never really reconcile those two. That there's a lot of tension up here between the French and the English. I think it's unfortunate. I would like to move past that. But you know, I talked to Quebec

nationalists all the time and it ain't fucking easy. It's hard to get a hold of them. When they do it's like, well, you know, if you want to reconcile this, you really the English have to change everything that they do. It's like okay, fuck.

like an empire. And empire doesn't just mean you're globally dominant, but it's it's sort of this structure that contains nations within it. That's the form that most empires take, especially as they expand, they open up new frontiers and then absorb new areas and the periphery. Then the periphery ends up filtering towards US. And so pretty much every empire throughout history has ended up multicultural, which isn't to say every civilization does, but most. I can't think of an

empire that hasn't. So interestingly, Canada kind of functions like an empire, has all these contained ethnic groups that it's trying to reconcile constantly. It's been constantly trying to figure out what to do with these groups that and we're not demanding really that they assimilate. We don't have a melting pot ideology up here. In fact, America never really had a melting pot. That was a bit of subversive

fiction that was foisted upon you. But there's this idea that what is a Canadian is a Canadian one of these four founding stocks. That's most nationalists would believe. But it may really made me wonder that if we had to make a Canadian, what would a Canadian? Because there's characteristics that you would assume Canadians have, but they tend to be of the angle variety. But there's a lot of internal conflict in America in Canada rather right now,

especially if you've heard about the Alberta separation movement. Alberta wants to separate. Part of that's driven by Trump's annexation doc, but not all of it. They've been unhappy for a long time. I'm hearing the same thing from British Columbia. Quebec has been talking about separating since I was a teenager. Manitoba is talking about it right now. So there's there's this I claim that we've made that the promise of confederation.

What made Canada? Well, what made Canadian confederation? That was the movement to unite Canada from east to west. Was to create this united land mass and connect it with one giant rail line to facilitate trade east and west. So we did not all become dependent on American trade and business. That ended up happening anyway, But the entire reason we had this confederation movement was to mutually benefit

every province financially. And I hate to say it, there's a strong argument to be made that we have not been keeping up that promise. In fact, the government situated in Ontario has been you know, handicapping Alberta for quite some time. So that's all to say that there's a lot of problems up here that people don't feel united politically. They certainly don't feel united ethnically. And so what is Canada because we can we even call ourselves a nation And we get into this in the film how do

you define a nation? Again? This is something many other larger creators have talked about. We cite many books in this as well. But you know, the idea of nationalism or a nation of people goes back to the Middle Ages even but nationalism as a modern movement you can trace to around the nineteenth century. But the idea is, you know, a nation needs to be a coherent people and then you can grow into a larger sort of orientation.

But you know, if you're not a coherent people, and even within Canada are there is ore Ontarians akherent people the Quebecua, I believe are, but are Albertans. What does Alberta standing alone in the world stage look like? So anyway, these are the questions that we're asking about. Okay, what who are these people? What is a Canadian? And can you create a new ethnicity in the twenty first century? What does that look like? It is possible to do.

You can have nations on the smaller scale, We have nations all through Canada and the forms of Aboriginal tribal bands, your American Indians you might have. They they are nations unto themselves legally up here and they would have a self awareness of themselves that is profoundly you know, nationalistic. And we give other sources, examples and sources in the film looking at Oriana and looking at these these emergent peoples all throughout you know, Africa and elsewhere, you know.

So it's it's not a question of size. It's actually more of a question of will. And so if you wanted to, it's less about uniting the entirety of Canada, which might be a fool's errand and more about you understand that there's there's something to being a Canadian, Okay, can you and a group of communities or families actually start something of an ethnogenesis in the twenty first century in Canada And that really became the through line of the entire piece. And it's a it's a pretty daring

case to be made, and we do it well. But I gave you a lot of stuff just there.

it those two groups are in conflict. That conflict is waged in terms of environmental policy on one hand and actually making money on the other. And so is that the kind of fault line? Is there a broader culture issue? How would you rate that analysis? And then also why would should we say Canada proper right the kind of current legitimate structure, why would they let that happen?

other big cities. Montreal, of course, Montreal's amazing city. But Toronto represents the financial and business center of the nation as far as I see it. And then you also have the nation's capital. So the elite, the government elite, and the business elite are clustered pretty closely. Together and

that will constitute the Laurentian center power. Then you have the Western Block and that's that's a lot of Alberta, and that's a lot of these oil companies and they would have gotten like they'll lorentially can trace their power back to the founding of Canada. They're one of the oldest ones, I say, the Western elites. They're more not new oil based, but their power comes from oil and

the Alberta oil sands. And you know they've you've got the government getting in their way of extracting the oil legally and through policy and whatnot. And that without getting too much into the minutia oft Canadian politics, this is why I say Alberta has a point to why the center of power in the country's getting in their way. Then you have the Quebec elites and they get a lot of their Honestly, they get a lot of their

money from government subsidies. In Canada, we have what are known and as have and have not provinces and we make equalization payments, so provinces that have a lot of money just give money to other provinces. And the number one recipient of this has been Quebec. For like decades, and the number one payer of this has been Alberta. Alberta in Ontario, but mostly Alberta. I think, so Alberta at some point saying why are we giving billions of dollars to Quebec And all Quebec does is complain about

us and contribute fucking nothing. I'm sorry, I love Quebec, but you don't fucking do anything. They've got like telecom companies, and they have this entrenched elite thing, but other than that, they're not. It's like they make circ to Sola and that's it. And I don't know if anyone's going to Cerch to Solat like they did ten years ago. I think they flew to the market. So then you know, those are the main ones. And then you have these elite families. These are they kind of fall in the

orbit of these centers of power. But you have you know, the Molson family and all these dynastic families. Again, they can trace their lineage back many, many generations, but so many of them fall into the orbit of if not Canadian power, then American power as well. Their business interests in line with America. So that's more or less the outline here. Now your second question was why would they allow this to happen. So, just to clarify, allow what to happen.

vote on whether or not you can leave. So every province can just vote no, which is what they did to Quebec, which is why Quebec is still part of Canada. So practically they're not going to leave. They're just not right. Secondly, I don't think they really want to leave. I don't think Alberta that stands apart from the rest of Canada. I don't think that puts them really in an advantageous position.

Actually don't think they've thought about that deeply. It's very popular, it's more popular than it's ever been, and I understand why I don't think they're going to separate. I don't think the will is there in Alberta, and I don't think the will is there outside of Alberta. But what I think it's just them causing a problem, taking their grievance auto saying fuck you to Parliament, and they should.

But I just not long after that BC British Columbia was they have their own separatist movement, why just to become part of China. So there's a lot of chatter about this, but I don't detect that they're really serious about it, although I do think it's valid. But the same reason I don't think Trump is serious about annex and Canada. If you really think about it, it wouldn't serve his interest. I don't think it would serve Alberta's interests.

I just think they want the government to stop fucking with them and they should.

own nationalists. I'm like, yeah, maybe, but you don't understand how much they hate white people, like they really there's no way around that. And I don't know how that affects their view of mass Indian migration. I just don't know, because they don't want to talk to us, and I have a feeling they would dislike us both egally. But I don't know. I don't think that the new Indians even want to fuck with the old Indians because like these reserves suck man like no one's like Indians want

to be in urban centers and suburbs. They don't want to go into like the rural areas where you know they're living like rednecks. Basically and they say that with affection, right, But like that that's completely antithetical to the Indian worldview where they're like going hiking and sand like they're going hiking up a mountain and sandals. They don't know what they're doing. They don't know where they are at any given moment. So yeah, I don't think they'll encroach over there.

I think that was the answer to your question. It was an answered to something.

been initiated into our ideas and our talking points. For some of this might seem old hat, but it's not for you and I the best reviews I have heard from people liked it and said this is something I can show my aunt, my mom, my work friend, or something. You know, if you've listened to Blood Sale, we can be a bit, you know, outside the bounds on certain things,

but little toward There's none of that in here. This was made to introduce, if not mainstream aligned people, then people who are maybe on the periphery of that and looking for something else. It's trying to introduce some pretty radical ideas, maybe some ideas that these people haven't heard before, package in a certain way that they haven't seen before.

And that's what this one. The first documentary was great, that one might even be easier to show people, and this one was more fashion from my way of thinking. So it lives or dies based on that. Some people might think it's too weird. I'll own that, but we take it in some pretty weird directions and it's got a pretty large ambition for this thing of what it wants to get across to someone just a first time viewer who hasn't really heard it any these ideas before.

So that that was the ambition of this project. But believe me, everything that we're talking about serves that interest. We can emplain about Indians more if you want to, because I don't mind that. I'll do that all day.

when it comes to Canadian politics. But is the public primed for this sort of product?

few realities that facilitated that. One is that there is a pretty strong you know, people have this idea of Canada, like I described it as sort of liberals and whatnot, but there's a like, there's only really a few cities that matter in Canada, and it's said a lot of towns, a lot of villages, a lot of rural areas, and a lot of people who are very outdoorsy. So you have a certain I don't want to call it a frontier character up here, but maybe I will. Maybe I'll

just fucking say that. But there's a lot of people who are a bit more conservatively aligned. And the Trucker protests, you know, coalesced a lot of different groups. It was, you know, vaccine skeptics plus conspiracy guys, plus white nationalists plus free speech people plus like, there's a lot of right wing groups that probably wouldn't get along otherwise that really crashed together and did this one miraculous thing that was so cool to see and it was so big.

And then there's still some people that have been arrested that are dealing with the consequences of that. But one of the things that facilitated that was that the Canadian security apparatus and the Canadian military. They did not have the ability to project force inward. And I think that was what scared them, that if they wanted to send in the cops of the military to stop this, they

fucking couldn't. They just didn't have the manpower, They didn't have the will, they didn't have the strength, they didn't have the plan to do that like they would in America. America can direct so much power at its own citizens at any given moment. But they couldn't do that and can. I think that showed a great weakness in their ability to marshal their forces interiorly. But you know, so what

does what does that represent? So I would say that of those groups I mentioned, they don't align on most things when it comes to even mass migration. At that time, there might have been a lot of anti vaccine people like the Alex Jones types. Right, like Alex Jones, even though they tried to turn info Wars trans for some reason, Alex Jones for being a far right schitzo, he's always

been pretty LGBT friendly. A'm ninety nine percent sure he had Blair White's feet in his mouth, and that you know, he's he's not a racist guy either, right, So you had like those people who wouldn't even agree on racial stuff, and maybe they've come around recently, but you know, if you were trying to build a movement with them outside of that flashpoint, you probably couldn't. So we're talking about

what is the movement on the ground. I'm right now I am more excited than I've ever been and more hopeful from seeing groups like the Dominion Society up here in Canada and Second Sons up here in Canada. Both these groups I speak to the leadership of them quite often. The Domain Society ran by Daniel Tyree, which is a political organization. Second Sons is more of an active club network, but very nationalist minded guys. The growth of these groups

has been phenomenal. I'd see the growth is more impressive than anything I've seen outside of America, and maybe even compared to America, just from the numbers I'm seeing and the quality of the people who are involved in the projects that they're starting to pull off. So based on the feedback to that, I think the movement on the ground and sort of the tone of everything is very

very good, at least where I am in Ontario. I can't speak to what it's like across the country, but the growth of these groups, these nationalist minded groups, these remigration groups, has been phenomenal and the amount of content people don't like to talk about that, but I would say the intellectual movement from some other people, other content creators that are trying to dig through Canadian history and

make it more relevant to Canadians. So they're not just always drawn towards international politics and international concerns, like they're trying to get a stronger awareness of themselves, of their history and make it more relevant to Canadians today. And so much of Canada's history is pretty nationalistic and you know, a militaristic in tone. So I'm very hopeful from what I'm seeing from the youth, people younger than myself. I'm not that old, so I think the stage is set

right now for some very very interesting things. And I think for a lot of people in the conservative movement, they're kind of they're gravitating a way from the center of that because they're looking at Pere Polyev. What time are we at? Am I going to Okay, we have some time, so I'll explain what happened with Trudeau was really interesting because you remember Justin Trudeau, don't you. Yes, I'm familiar with Yeah. So he was really funny because he's been stupid for that as long as he's been

Prime minister. But at some point near the end of his tenure, there was a green light that was placed over his head that made it okay to bully him, bully him in a way that I've never seen done to a world leader by his own people, even with like George W. Bush. But that's where you started seeing fuck Trudeau bumper stickers everywhere. You saw like ladies making

fun of Trudeau for being stupid and whatnot. And I was hopeful for a minute because he got a divorce while he was Prime minister and he started getting a beard, but a very specific type of divorced guy beard. And I said, Weave, I don't even think America has had a proper divorced president, and we've certainly never had a divorced prime minister. Are we ready for such a thing? And I'm like, this guy, he's got a divorced brain right now. He's capable of anything. It's like when Trump

got shot in the fucking head. You don't know what he's going to do next, right, same thing, like a man going through divorce might as well be shot in the side of the head. But everyone was just making making fun of this guy, and because there was such a green light placed over bullying him, it's you know, I think people got like the wrong idea about how

Canadians feel about the Liberal Party. And so because everyone was making buntradea this guy named Peter Poliev who is a leader of the Conservative Party, he was a shoe in at the election. Trudeau was on his way out, he announced everyone he didn't even want to be Prime minister anymore. So this guy Pierre Poliev, who's a fucking dork, who doesn't have a single original idea in his head. You know, he's a shoe and he's gonna just slide right in there. And then here comes this guy named

Mark Carney and just decimates him. Because it turns out no one, no one liked the Conservative Party as much as they hated Trudeau, and just because they hated Trudeau didn't mean they disliked the Liberal Party at all. And so that's what happened at that election. And even prior to the election, we were saying Pierre Poulyev is gonna lose. The Conservaives are gonna lose. And that was hopeful because I said, you know what they can do now is

they can reassess. Get Pierre Poliev out of there, find a new guy. Who are you gonna get, I don't know, go crazy, Find a dark horse candidate like Trump, Find a psychopath, I don't know, you know, find just anyone but Kevin O'Leary. You know. But what they I wasn't expecting them to do what they did, which was just keep pure poly even power and change nothing. So right now there's a lot of people in the Conservative Party that are looking for not an out, but saying that

what the fuck are we doing? Mark Karney, the liberal prime minister, We're gonna have twenty five years of him. You could be prime minister for as long as you want. By the way he could be. He could be prime minister for one hundred thousand years if he wants to, if he just keeps getting re elected. So there's people within the Conservative movement they're looking for some of that energy that they felt. They remember what it's like to hate a liberal leader, They remember what it was like

for the Trucker protests. There's something here, and these conservatives, the prison they're in is so fucking boring and offers them nothing. All it offers is scolding. So I'm looking at them and saying, there's an alternative, and it's it's this other thing outside of the politics. This this this emergence nationalistic thing that I was just describing.